I have been consistent over many years in my belief that at almost every level the Oxfam charity is not fit for purpose, as you can see from a stream of articles HERE. I try to persuade my reactionary old father that he should stop pretending to my PC sisters that he is one of them by giving money to Oxfam but to no avail. Maybe today I might get my way, you see it appears his cash has been spent on underage hookers.

Dad should have cancelled his direct debit a few weeks ago when Oxfam launched a ludicrous report on poverty. Its claim then was that the 62 richest folks in the world had the same wealth as the 3.6 billion poorest and that this poverty ( i.e inequality) must be eradicated and that we should give it cash to stamp that out.

Of course that is nonsense. In the Oxfam work view if we were to shoot the 62 richest folks (can I have Saint Bono if, after all his tax avoidance the old hypocrite is on the list please?) and burn all their cash thee gap between rich and poor would narrow so there would be less of what we define as poverty. Of course this would make absolutely no difference at all to those who are in absolute terms poor, starving or unable to afford clothing or housing.

Relative poverty is a concept for middle class and affluent lefties to wank off about. Absolute poverty is what must be tackled. And you do that not by attacking the rich but by encouraging capitalism which, where it has been allowed to flourish, has seen the numbers of folk starving or without housing fall dramatically. Absolute poverty still flourishes in economies drowning in NGOs but starved of capitalism.

My father almost accepted that point but he still supports Oxfam. Maybe today's headline in the Times might change his view. It seems that seven Oxfam workers put up in luxury accommodation by the charity in Haiti were using their Oxfam wages to have sex with hookers, many of them under-age. The workers included the head of Country operations and while four were fired the three most senior were allowed to resign to spare any blushes.

Accountability is always weak in organisations such as Oxfam but now Dad knows where some of his generous donations have gone. I appreciate that he is keen to leave as little as possible to what he terms the "nest of vipers"that is to say my five siblings and me. But, perhaps, there is a marginally less degenerate charity employing a few less Guardian reading tossers on £100,000 a year or more and spending a bit less on underage hookers than Oxfam out there who he might consider bankrolling?